First-Order Data Available to Survey Respondents.

This paper explores individual-level standards of evidence in the political domain. In particular, we examine why people rely on different types of evidence in their evaluations of causal claims. Our empirical analysis is based on original survey data collected in August 2023. We conducted a demographically diverse online survey in the U.S in which we asked respondents to evaluate the effectiveness of a new policy initiative (cash bail reform). The survey offered subjects different pieces of information to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention. Among other things, people could view: (a) The number of instances in which cities have/ have NOT been exposed to the policy intervention as well as observed societal outcomes for each case group; (b) Evaluations provided by in-group and out-group sources. Our empirical analysis reveals three major findings. First, standards of evidence vary systematically across individuals. In particular, respondents differ across two main dimensions: 1) the type of first-order/ statistical evidence they collect on a given question and 2) the type of expert testimony that they consult when assessing social cause-and-effect relationships. Second, both conservative ideology and people’s overall propensity to engage in cognitive reflection explain at least some of this variation. In particular, more liberal respondents as well as subjects with higher scores on the cognitive reflection scale exhibit a pronounced tendency to collect comprehensive statistical evidence rather than other forms of information. Third, people who score highly in cognitive refection are also more likely to refer to a broader range of external sources than their counterparts with lower reflection scores.本研究探讨政治领域中的个体层面证据标准（individual-level standards of evidence）。具体而言，我们旨在分析人们在评估因果主张时为何会依赖不同类型的证据。我们的实证分析基于2023年8月收集的原创调查数据。我们在美国开展了人口结构多样化的线上调查，要求受访者评估一项新政策举措——现金保释改革（cash bail reform）的有效性。本次调查为受试者提供了不同信息以评估该干预措施的效果，受试者可查看的内容包括：(a) 各城市实施/未实施该政策干预的案例数量，以及各组案例对应的观测社会结果；(b) 内群体与外群体信息源给出的评估意见。我们的实证分析揭示了三项主要结论。其一，个体的证据标准存在系统性差异，具体体现在两大维度：1）针对特定问题所收集的一阶/统计证据（first-order/ statistical evidence）类型；2）在评估社会因果关系时所参考的专家证词类型。其二，保守主义意识形态与个体参与认知反思的整体倾向，均可在一定程度上解释这种差异。具体而言，更为自由主义的受访者，以及在认知反思量表（cognitive reflection scale）上得分更高的受试者，会显著倾向于收集全面的统计证据，而非其他形式的信息。其三，认知反思得分较高的人群，相较于反思得分较低的受试者，也更有可能参考范围更广的外部信息源。